Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Stirling

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ST47Talk 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Stirling

Douglas Stirling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Non-notable. [1] [2] The subject does appear to have published a number of papers,[3] (assuming there is only one D. A. Stirling) but only 11 in the area of life sciences.[4], [and those papers are not heavily cited -- statement retracted by Chovain^(t|c) 23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)]. I don't believe this person passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Chovain^(t|c) 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Keep at least this article, as it's pure crap not worth keeping, however, no determinant of his notability. Number of articles is not a determinant of the importance of the author, and 11 in the life sciences (what other area should he be publishing in? Einstein published almost exclusively in theoretical physics) could be astounding if they were all major articles, or if he were a young scientist, or if only 2 of them were among the top 10 cited articles in his field. It's not the number, but how well cited the articles are that matters. Even just one, if it's well-cited in the scientist's field, could lead to notability. And, you searched for his wrong in the google, it's not his Dundee Dental Hospital work that is being asserted as notable anyhow. If you search for Einstein's angiosperm research you're not going to find anything. And scientific articles about organisms are keyworded by the scientific name of the organism, not the common name, even though in the case of yeasts, the common name may be used. So, only 11 of his articles are in his area is no reason to say he's not notable, scientific articles are keyworded by their organisms, and he's not noted for his recent move to Dendee Dental Hospital, but for the organism he researched and the discoveries he made about it. His article "Mutations which block the binding of calmodulin to Spc110p cause multiple mitotic defects" alone is cited by 20 others, plus, I didn't even look, these are articles on the mitotic spindle, an extraordinarily complex organelle, and one of the last great discoveries, how it works, in the life sciences. KP Botany 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Added reference to Science Fair Encyclopedia article Article seems to be virtually a direct copy from this source, so in its current state there may be copyright issues. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  Nah - that's a wikipedia feed. It says "The contents of this article is licensed from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License". I'm removing the circular ref. :) Chovain^(t|c) 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Appears to meet basic WP:V standards in the sense of adequate independent sources. Although notability appears relatively minor, after wading through articles on characters in video games, minor bands, etc., it has started seeming odd that Wikipedia appears to have stricter standards for scientists than it does for these aspects of popular culture etc. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the guidelines are particularly strict for any aspect, so much as the pop culture crap garners more "But I like it!" supporters. GassyGuy 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good point. But this is basically a POV delete, "I don't believe this person passes," "not heavily cited" but cited just fine in its complex area, limited publications outside of his area (huh?), and failure to search properly for the organism he studied (called by scientists by its scientific name, for gosh sake), rather than his current recent job placement (scientists known by what they study AND by their institutes, but only by the former is fine, too). It's basically a small piece of an incredibly important and complex major puzzle in the life sciences--remove his piece, maybe the puzzle falls apart, which makes his research, even if only for the one article, important enough to qualify him. Nice to know, though, its a copyright infringement since it is so crappy. KP Botany 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Uhh - POV? What happened to WP:AGF? You've misunderstood what I mean by "not well cited", too. I mean that only 8 papers cite his work, not that he doesn't cite his sources. Chovain^(t|c) 03:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• And I used the word "believe" because I realise others may have a different opinion, not because I am basing my nomination on faith. If I were POV-pushing, wouldn't I have pushed my POV down your throat rather than leave it open to debate? Chovain^(t|c) 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Uhh -- didn't you see the one paper that was cited by 20 others? So one major paper is cited in 20 other papers, and somehow his papers total all cited only by 8?[5] How do you figure? I haven't precisely assumed bad faith, but I do question your methods for deciding this needs deleted when you've used the words, "appears" and "don't believe," searched for the common name of the organism, rather than its scientific name (for a scientist), and searched for the scientist attached to a newly acquired institutional appointment, rather than for his research on the organism or the important area of his research Mitotic spindle and you got the number of works citing his work as wrong, in particular for the one major paper in a major peer-reviewed scientific journal in which he is the lead author.[6]
• Questions Okay, assuming good faith on my part, please just explain your reasoning to me so I understand why this article should be deleted? I would really like to understand what is going on with AfD, and I do think that the criteria for notability for scientists are much higher than for video game minor characters. How did you come up with only 8 citations by others, when Journal of Cell Science links to 20 for a major article? Did you decide his research area was not important, if so how? Why search for the organism by common name for a scientific subject? However, one my bad for me--you at least DID look for this stuff. I'm not wholey sold on the article because it's so crummy and it would be so damn much research for me to get up to speed to rewrite it myself, so that's my POV. But, help me to understand yours. KP Botany 03:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not saying the article should be deleted. I'm asking the community if it should, and providing a start to the discussion. The criteria for video game characters is irrelevant. Especially when dealing with the sciences, let's not stoop to lowest common denominator. The "8" figure came from the search at [4], which is the search "not heavily cited" referred to. Chovain^(t|c) 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The 8 figure came from me misreading the results of the search at [4]. Chovain^(t|c) 19:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, seems reasonably cited for his rather specialised field of work. Notable enough, in my opinion. Lankiveil 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
• keep and source properly. I couldn't agree with you more, KP, about the possible merit of the article and the proper way of looking for it, but the information as originally presented here didn't justify N and didn't necessarily look as if it would. The only thing that caught my eye was the "senior scientist", which usually implies faculty-equivalent.

Unfortunately, many articles about scientists and other academics are poorly written, and do not clearly present the necessary information for N, so we have to get it together here at AfD and add it. Worse, some people Speedy such articles when they are, as now, clearly worth at least a debate so sources can be found. The arguments presented here are all too common. I have been collecting examples from Speedy and Prod, and putting some of them in the talk page at Notability(academics) and at CSD. For the current collection, see User:DGG:sandbox4speedy1. Some of it is much worse than this.

When the proposer gives the search used and the results found, we have a basis for discussion. I congratulate Chovain on doing so. Let's encourage people to do so, and then explain how to do it better. In this case, for example, it might have been clearer to start with PubMed, which is free from many of the ambiguous GScholar counts. DGG 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Chovain actually did a search, which is an improvement on most. It's discouraging to hear there are articles worse than this one. KP Botany 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - House of Scandal 09:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Quite strong delete This appears to be a bio and has no wiki relevance. Tellyaddict 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That it "appears to be a bio" is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia has biographies. See, for example, Albert Einstein, Paul Kane, Robert Lawson (architect), Charles Darwin, Michael Woodruff, and Douglas Adams. KP Botany 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be notable. Would be improved by references. | Noticket 15:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete no independent quotes, no verifiable sources Alf photoman 15:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per KP Botany. Edison 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the main claim to notability, significant contribution to the field per WP:PROF, can be sourced. I'm hard-pressed to find anything relevant. He doesn't seem to have tenure or be a prinicpal investigator. He is a co-author of a very notable paper: A PHYSIOLOGICAL-ROLE FOR DNA SUPERCOILING IN THE OSMOTIC REGULATION OF GENE-EXPRESSION IN S-TYPHIMURIUM AND ESCHERICHIA-COLI : HIGGINS CF, DORMAN CJ, STIRLING DA, WADDELL L, BOOTH IR, MAY G, BREMER E : CELL 52 (4): 569-584 FEB 26 1988, with about 500 cites, but looking over the record the main claim to fame seems to go to CF Higgins, and cites for first-authored papers look much more modest. So unless better evidence is unearthed this falls under the "bishops, lieutenants and notaries" category of professionals with a sound service record but no distinguishing characteristic. ~ trialsanderrors 05:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I must admit an interest here, since I knew him when I worked in Dundee University. However, he has not written any review articles or textbooks, nor made a outstanding contribution to his field. He is a very nice guy, but he's not an internationally-renowned scientist. TimVickers 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I requested more input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass WP:PROF. With all due respect, I'm afraid people who say that a 20-year old paper cited 50 times is indicative of notability in the field don't really know what they're talking about. I've already argued this many times before on similar AfDs but this is simply due to misunderstanding of how citation works in academic fields. For one thing, you will cite yourself throughout your career. It is likely that any co-author of the paper has continued to work in related areas and has often cited that paper in introducing his own new discoveries. Unless someone can find a credible reference identifying Mr. Stirling as an authority and as someone who has had a considerable impact in his field, we could reconsider. However, Google searches strongly indicate that no such references exist. Pascal.Tesson 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.